MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405458940 · doi:10.1007/s13300-024-01677-5

Cost-Effectiveness of FreeStyle Libre for Glucose Self-Management Among People with Diabetes Mellitus: A Canadian Private Payer Perspective

2024· article· en· W4405458940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)EVERSANA (Canada)Western University
FundersAbbott Diabetes Care
KeywordsMedicineGlycated hemoglobinDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesType 2 Diabetes MellitusHypoglycemiaInsulinBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetic ketoacidosisIntensive care medicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineEndocrinologyContinuous glucose monitoring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For people living with diabetes, effective glucose monitoring is a key component in diabetes care, helping to reduce disease burden, complications, and healthcare utilization. Sensor-based glucose monitoring systems, which can provide more comprehensive information about glucose levels than capillary-based self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), are becoming established among people living with diabetes. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre systems, compared with SMBG, from the perspective of a Canadian private payer. The analysis used the validated, person-level microsimulation model DEDUCE (Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects). Analyses were conducted separately for populations of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM; T2DM), with time horizons of 40 and 25 years, respectively. T2DM treatment was assumed to be 84% non-insulin, 10% basal insulin, and 6% multiple daily injections of insulin. The effect of FreeStyle Libre was modeled as reductions versus SMBG in glycated hemoglobin level (T1DM, − 0.42%; insulin-treated T2DM, − 0.59%; non-insulin-treated T2DM, − 0.3%) and in acute diabetic events (hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis). Costs (in 2023 Canadian dollars (Can$)) and utilities were discounted at 1.5%. Outcomes were assessed as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In both populations, FreeStyle Libre was dominant to SMBG, providing more QALYs at a lower cost (T1DM: + 1.25 QALYs, − Can$32,287 costs; T2DM: + 0.48 QALYs, − Can$8091 costs). Reductions were seen in the cumulative incidence of all complications (except blindness in the T1DM analysis). FreeStyle Libre was dominant to SMBG in all scenarios tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that FreeStyle Libre had a 100% probability of being dominant to SMBG for T1DM and a 91% probability of being dominant for T2DM. This economic analysis shows that, from a Canadian private payer perspective, FreeStyle Libre is cost-effective compared with SMBG for all people living with diabetes. Glucose monitoring is important for people living with diabetes. Effective glucose monitoring can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), diabetic ketoacidosis (a potentially life-threatening complication which occurs when the body has low insulin and high blood sugar levels), and long-term complications. This can be done using finger sticks and test strips or sensor-based devices such as the FreeStyle Libre systems. In this study, we modeled the effect of FreeStyle Libre use in persons living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada using the DEDUCE economic model. In both analyses, FreeStyle Libre use was predicted to lead to better outcomes (measured as quality-adjusted life years—a measure of health which combines life expectancy with quality of life) for people living with diabetes while reducing costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it